Okay, they are looking at the content of your emails

By Dan Brooks in War on Terror 2 Comments
Traitor!

Traitor!

The New York Times announced today that, contrary to earlier assurances from the executive branch, the NSA is looking at the contents of large numbers of Americans’ emails. Don’t worry, though: they’re only looking at emails and text messages that originate or are received overseas, and they’re only searching for information related to specific targets. The word “target” appears in an alarming number of reassurances about this program. While we’re trusting implicitly the institutional structures of America, there’s also this paragraph from the Times report:

Hints of the surveillance appeared in a set of rules, leaked by Mr. Snowden, for how the N.S.A. may carry out the 2008 FISA law. One paragraph mentions that the agency “seeks to acquire communications about the target that are not to or from the target.” The pages were posted online by the newspaper The Guardian on June 20, but the telltale paragraph, the only rule marked “Top Secret” amid 18 pages of restrictions, went largely overlooked amid other disclosures.

Which is understandable, because why would journalists notice the one marked “Top Secret?”

Continue reading

A reasonable idea for the FISA court

By Dan Brooks in War on Terror 1 Comment
The FISA Court reviews a federal warrant request, for all we know.

The FISA Court reviews a federal warrant request, for all we know.

Is that Ted Turner next to Skeletor in this artist’s rendering of the Illuminati? It doesn’t matter; when a convocation of power is secret, we from whom the secret is kept can let our imaginations run wild. Even if you don’t think the secret courts that approve NSA and FBI wiretapping requests allow the federal government abuse its power, you have to admit that they encourage mistrust. Secrecy is a double-edged sword. When you tell the American people that what you’re doing is completely legitimate and you can’t say why, a segment of the population*Screen Shot 2013-07-23 at 9.55.59 AM assumes the worst. In today’s Times, former FISA court judge James Carr proposes a simple solution: appoint pro bono publico attorneys to argue against the government when its requests raise new legal issues.

Continue reading

Guantanamo detainees not “persons,” will be force-fed during Ramadan

By Dan Brooks in War on Terror 1 Comment
Om nom nom.

Om nom nom.

We don’t know exactly how many, because releasing such information would jeopardize national security, but approximately 100 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are on hunger strike. Last week, a DC district court rejected the petition of four prisoners to cease force-feeding during the  month of Ramadan, when observant Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset. But don’t worry: prison administrators will only forcibly nourish prisoners through neogastric tubes when it’s dark out. If you read down a few paragraphs in the Guardian article, you will also find this:

US government lawyers also argued that the detainees bringing the case, Shaker Aamer, Nabil Hadjarab, Ahmed Belbacha and Abu Wa’el Dhiab, are not “persons” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and are therefore not protected under it.

Fans of War on Terror jurisprudence will be interested to learn that lawyers for the federal government have made this argument since 2006.

Continue reading

FISC court builds body of secret law

By Dan Brooks in War on Terror 7 Comments
But this guy is the dick for telling you about it.

But this guy is the dick for telling you about it.

Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal ran stories about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court this week, and I urge you to read them. The FISC, which the Times insists on calling the “FISA court” after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has established a body of case law that significantly expands the federal government’s domestic surveillance powers, and it’s all secret. You’re not allowed to know what the FISC determines the NSA and FBI can legally do, because that would help terrorists. In June, when the Senate asked NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander whether FISC would ever make some of its rulings public, Alexander said:

I don’t want to jeopardize the security of Americans by making a mistake in saying, ‘Yes, we’re going to do all that.’

So “no,” then? Here’s a link to Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language,” just in case Gen. Alexander is reading this. We know someone in his office is.

Continue reading

The case against secret government

By Dan Brooks in War on Terror 28 Comments

Guy Fawkes

My grandfather once said that you know you’re doing something wrong when you don’t want to tell anyone about it. Unless the NSA is using our phone records and social media data to plan an awesome surprise party, there is something suspect in the claim that domestic surveillance was kept secret for our own good. Secrecy is antithetical to democracy. Tim Weiner argues as much at Bloomberg, where he points out that presidents from LBJ to GWB have demonstrated that you can’t trust the executive. At Esquire, Charles Pierce puts a simultaneously finer and more vulgar point on it when he asks that the federal government please tell him what it is doing in his name.

Continue reading